When asked if he understood why members of the media would find the records seizure “troubling,” Holder replied that the leak they are trying to plug was “very, very serious.”

“I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious – it’s in the top two or three – most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen,” Holder added. “It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole.”

Fascists always seize on a “crisis” in order to justify the seizure of more power. It is simply what fascists have always done.

According to the Post, the AP had been sitting on a scoop about a failed Al Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials for five days. The morning they were supposed to release the story, journalists were asked by government officials to wait another day, citing safety concerns.

However, the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day, according to The Post report.

But now we have another proof that Eric Holder is a liar without shame, without honor and without integrity. We now know that, rather than unleash this kind of Stalinist surveillance monster for ONE media outlet in ONE circumstance that was “in the top two or three – most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen”, this Stalinism toward the media is an event that has occurred ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

It happened to Fox News, too, involving a different story. Which means so much for the magnitude of the AP leak justifying the Stalinist means.

Fox News reports that three Fox staffers, two reporters and one producer, were targeted by Barack Obama’s Justice Department. Fox doesn’t have all the details yet on reporter William La Jeunesse and producer Mike Levine, but their emails showed up in a IG report regarding Fast and Furious. Either their emails were leaked by the Justice Department officials they were sent to, or the email accounts of both were subpoenaed and invaded by government investigators.

The IG report does say that subpoenas were issued to obtain emails. Whose email was targeted is not yet known.

The third staffer is reporter James Rosen. The Washington Post‘s story behind that is downright chilling. What we have here is a case of the Obama Administration criminalizing reporting.

In June of 2009, James Rosen of Fox News reported that North Korea might respond to an increase in United Nations sanctions with even more nuclear tests. Rosen added that the CIA had learned this information from their sources within North Korea.

According to the Washington Post, upon hearing learning of Rosen’s report, the White House launched what many believe is an unprecedented leak probe that went so far as to criminalize standard news-gathering.

Because the Justice Department believes the source of the leak to Rosen was Jin-Woo Kim, a government adviser, he is facing federal charges that could land him a 10-year prison sentence.

But in their zeal to dig into reporter Rosen’s part in this (and supposedly firm up their case against Kim), the Post reports that FBI agent Regineld Reyes claimed there was “evidence Rosen had broken the law, ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.’”

After building their case against Kim, the Obama administration then went after Rosen, using his badge to trace his whereabouts in the State Department. But they also wanted Rosen’s emails. The Post writes that in order to do this, because of legal protections offered the media, the case had to be made that Rosen was a co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to leak national security secrets:

Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter’s work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant — agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

Rosen said the government never contacted him.

The thing you have to keep in mind here is that if Kim and Rosen did what the Obama administration says they did — it is something that happens almost every day between reporters and their sources. It is called everyday journalism; and the Obama administration is attempting to criminalize everyday journalism.

If sources are not leaking information to journalists, what is the alternative? Well, the only alternative is that the media write what the government tells them to write.

Reblogged this on shaynroby and commented:
When it is politically advantageous to do so, the Obama administration has made sure that they have leaked information to the press. When potentially harmful stories have exposed incompetence or corruption, his administration has resorted to thuggery and intimidation in order to silence the media.

The hypocrisy of this administration defies anything American history has ever seen. Obama is the guy who says that Bush’s $4 trillion over 8-year debt was “unpatriotic” and “un-American.” Then he goes on to increase his own debt by going on $7 trillion in four years and we’re playing “politics” if we remember Obama’s hypocrisy and his own self-admission of what an “unpatriotic and un-American” piece of slime he is. He votes against increasing the Bush debt ceiling when he was a senator only to say that anybody who does the exact same thing that HE did is somehow a traitor to America.

This is a pattern that goes all the way back to the thug-in-chief’s first day as president.

It is amazing. It is exactly what we should expect to see before the world collapses into economic ruin and the beast of the Book of Revelation comes.

Creepier and creepier, I don’t know, I hope this isn’t too far off topic.

A few days ago my wife and I went to Walmart to pick up some macaroni or some such. On arrival, in the parking lot we were approached by an early twenty something female. She was carrying a notebook or a clipboard so I got the impression it was some survey or sales crap. No such luck. She starts telling us about her desperate need to get to Ohio to go to a funeral.

I just wanted to get away from her but my wife is somewhat more sympathetic. I told my wife, “I ain’t got no cash. Use your own discretion.” So my wife starts paging through some tens. I didn’t say it but I am alll like “geesh, don’t give her a ten.”

Wife ends up giving her like three ones.

On receiving this the girl looks to the sky and raises her hands up and exclaims. “Oh, thank you barak, praise barak!”

My wife and I give her the look of ewwww, ick.

She quickly explains that she is hebrew and that “barak” means “praise and glory.”

In my mind I never really believed that there are actually people that people that have deified Obama. I always thought that allegations of such were just the stuff of hyperbole.

Granted Obama and his minions plus many more individuals labeled ‘leftists’ are fascists. But what exactly is a fascist? To answer that question requires that we not only dig into the twisted psychology of individuals like Obama, Holder, Clinton, Saul Alinsky et al. but pull back the curtain that we might peer into the unseen realm, where the real source of pathology exists. Toward this end: “The Demonic in Our Postmodern Fabricated Alternative Reality” http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kimball/130523

That’s an interesting article you link to. I skimmed it over but will read it more thoroughly.

I would submit that we can answer the question “What is fascism?” in historic terms rather than in merely psychological or even spiritual terms. Scholarly works such as Gene Edward Veith’s “Modern Fascism” take on this task and provide a plethora of expert sources on the history of fascism.

A couple of key elements emerge: 1) Fascism is a form of socialism. It is the state rising up in power and seizing control of the nation and the people along with all the resources the nation and people produce. And 2) fascism is a violent reaction against transcendence. It amounts to the hatred of the God of the Bible and the determination to replace God with the State.

Not that I wouldn’t have fallen for it too. But the woman was right: “barak” is in fact a Hebrew word signifying blessing, adoration or praise (בָּרַךְ Strong’s #1288).

I don’t give money to people who come to me for money very often (as in “RARELY”). What I do is challenge anyone asking me for money with the question, “Why should I give you anything?” The only correct answer is “Because I am a human being created in the image of God and I need help.” What I do after my interrogation (and testimony) is buy the person some food. I don’t give money very often because most of the people who get that money will use it to buy booze or something even worse.

But I’d have give that woman a TEN for her praise to God!

Having said that, if I had given a woman money and she said, “Oh, thank you barak, praise barak!” I would have leaped to the same conclusion that you did. And yeah, it would have been “ewwww, ick.” And I would have wanted my three bucks back big time.